Peer-reviewed Journal Article

Conventional wisdom suggests that cultural differences makeconflict more likely. Culture can unite anddivide, but there exists little agreement among scholars overhow identity forms among states, what distinctionsare most salient, and when conflict is morelikely. Researchers have tended to ‘confirm’the role of identity in an ex post facto fashion, looking only at actual conflicts with cultural differences,without considering the opportunities for conflictamong groups. We address a series of problems with existing conceptions of identity and ethnicity. We distinguishbetween shared and different culture by religion,language, and ethnicity. Rather than equating states with just the dominant groups, we also consider howrelations involving secondary groups presentin other states can give rise to conflict. We examine empiricallythe relationship between cultural similaritiesand differences and international dispute behaviorin the post-World War II era. Our results suggest that cultureand identity influence dispute patterns, butin ways that run counter to conventional beliefs. We find little evidence that conflict is more common betweenstates where the dominant groups come from differentcultural affiliations. If anything, our results suggest that violence is more likely among states with similarcultural ties, even when controlling for otherdeterminants of conflict. Moreover, dyads where a group is politically privileged in one state but a minorityin another tend to be particularly conflictprone. We conclude with suggestions for reorienting the studyof identity and conflict in more constructiveways than the clash of civilization thesis.